DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0027] and [0033] should be revised for clarity.
Among other options, paragraph [0027] could be revised as: “Plate thickness in the thin portion 33 may be provided to discharge gas to the outside of the battery module, for example, when gas is released from the safety valve 12, the pressure in the space described above is cracked in the thin portion 33 when exceeding the threshold value which is set by experiments or the like so that a crack (opening) is formed.
Among other options, paragraph [0033] could be revised as: “Further, since the first battery group 1 is disposed above the second battery group 2 and the cooler 20 is disposed below the first battery group 1, the protection member 30 may suppress movement of water to the second battery group 2 from dripping of droplets adhering to the cooler 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the thickness” in line 5 which lacks explicit antecedent basis and should be amended as “the plate thickness” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero et al. (US 20120156543) in view of Walter (US 20250079616).
Regarding claim 1, Cicero et al. discloses a battery module shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
794
1411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cicero et al. discloses the battery module comprises: a first battery group (upper frame member 202, Fig. 7) including a plurality of cells (para. [0011]); a second battery group (upper frame member 320, Fig. 7) including a plurality of cells (para. [0011]) having safety valves (release vent 112 is a valve, para. [0039]); a cooler (cooling system 224, Fig. 4, para. [0044]) provided between the first battery group and the second battery group (Fig. 7 and shown above); and a protection member (terminal cover 800) that covers a portion of the second battery group that faces the cooler (the terminal cover 800 may serve as a flat surface for stacking another battery pack, para. [0067], and thus covers a portion of the second battery group facing the cooler as indicated in Fig. 7).
Cicero et al. does not expressly disclose the protection member is configured such that a plate thickness of a predetermined first region that faces the safety valves is smaller than a plate thickness of a second region other than the first region.
However, Walter discloses a battery module (Fig. 1) wherein a protection member (module cover 1, para. [0050]) is configured such that a plate thickness of a predetermined first region (cut-outs 2 with rupture discs 10) that faces the safety valves (facing safety valves 6, Fig. 1) is smaller than a plate thickness of a second region other than the first region (sufficiently thin, para. [0062], 0.1 mm, para. [0071] as compared to 1.3 mm for the second region, para. [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cicero et al. wherein the protection member is configured such that a plate thickness of a predetermined first region that faces the safety valves is smaller than a plate thickness of a second region other than the first region.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a smaller thickness in the first region in order to allow for rupture of the first region when the safety valve discharges and thereby prevent overpressure in the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Cicero et al. discloses the first battery group is disposed above the second battery group; and the cooler is disposed below the first battery group (Fig. 7 and shown above for claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero et al. (US 20120156543) in view of Walter (US 20250079616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Rheinfeld et al. (attached translation of DE 102020128756A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cicero et al. does not disclose a guide member.
However, Rheinfeld et al. discloses a battery module (module 10) having battery cells (battery cells 12) with safety valves (degassing points 22 are pressure relief valves, para. [0007]), a cooler (cooler 20), and a protection member (cell contacting element 16 with cover 18) and Rheinfeld et al. teaches wherein the protection member is provided with a guide member (shown below) that constitutes a flow path of a gas (passages 24) from the safety valves to the first region (breaking points 28); and the guide member is configured such that a thickness of the guide member is larger than the thickness of the first region (Rheinfeld et al. reasonably discloses the guide member is much thicker because the guide member is solid between openings 24 such that the guide has a thickness which is the distance between openings) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
631
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cicero et al. wherein the protection member is provided with a guide member that constitutes a flow path of a gas from the safety valves to the first region; and the guide member is configured such that a thickness of the guide member is larger than the thickness of the first region.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a guide member in order to direct material away from sensitive components (Rheinfeld et al., pars. [0027] and [0029]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a guide member thicker than the first region in order to ensure that the first region ruptures before other portions to ensure material is directed to the appropriate location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pröll et al. (US 20230246289) discloses a cooling device between battery groups and which has venting pathways for safety valves.
Kim et al. (US 20230291064) discloses a battery cover with a cooler where the cooler has gas discharge paths and venting regions.
Egashira et al. (US 20220149478) discloses a battery cover with gas discharge paths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights